[austin-cheney]

In all fairness social media is in the same kind of business model as porn and gambling. None of that is forced on anybody. If you don't want those in your life then just don't consume them. If you don't want them in your household use a DNS blocker. How much should we really parent the rest of society?

[ryandvm]

It's a fair question, but it irritates me because it suggests that we should accept the self-destruction of vast swaths of the population in the name of perfect liberty.

The reality is that we have a lot of institutions that prey on consumers' biology in a way that is overpowering for the average individual. Social media, ragebait news, and junk food are good examples of legal products that hijack human tendencies for the purpose of commercial exploitation.

We do not allow unrestricted access to opiates because the average person does not have the fortitude required to resist addiction. It's becoming increasingly clear that some of these media products are able to induce drug-like dependency - and harm.

Fortunately, for the media products, I think the answer is fairly obvious. Sitting at the bottom of all this is advertising. Meta needs people looking at their screens 6 hours a day because they don't make money from subscriptions, they make their money per-view from the advertisers. FOX News or MSNBC are the same, if you're not holding your iPad with white knuckles wondering how democracy is going to end, they're not making money.

[austin-cheney]

The alternative is excessive regulation. Sugar, especially fructose, is extremely destructive to the body and its more addictive than cocaine, but I don't see laws forbidding access to sugar. If you are that concerned with regulating people to death start with the greatest harms first and see just how far that goes.

[tolerance]

> It's a fair question, but it irritates me because it suggests that we should accept the self-destruction of vast swaths of the population in the name of perfect liberty.

We shouldn't. But to what end?

[TheOtherHobbes]

Facebook chose that business model. It wasn't forced on it.

The terrible thing about social media is that has real utility. If you take away the addictive optimisation and surveillance and leave the local networking, forums, discussion groups, and small sales and basic ads you still have a very viable business - somewhat smaller, but still wildly successful.

But the point of Facebook is surveillance and belief/behaviour modification. The services provided are secondary.

[austin-cheney]

Nearly everybody is already aware, but some people choose to use Facebook anyways. That is their choice.

[ben_w]

> If you don't want those in your life then just don't consume them.

That works fine when the thing is neither addictive nor required for interaction with certain people you need to interact with.

I can avoid Meta specifically, but then again I also live in Germany and one of the language podcasts I listen to had the host complain about their bank telling them to communicate by fax next time they wanted to change their PIN.

[edwcross]

Law forbids my local administrative entities from engaging with porn and gambling. Yet they force me to use Facebook if I want to see events that are happening (and paid with my taxes).

So, sorry, but the liberal ideal paradise of "let loose and people will choose" does not work in practice, at least where I live. I need some laws to force my less tech-savvy nearby citizens to make the right choices.

[Mwntalhwalth]

In order to follow clubs the local HS puts on you have to follow their Instagram account. They put the content/updates nowhere else.

"Need to be on IG dad so I can be active in extracurricular in HS."

Mandate APIs out and this problem goes away so folks can vibe code really simple solutions that keeps you off the site.

[netsharc]

A decade ago official entities like police or city hall would say "Follow us on Twitter to get the latest news", and would just use it as an instant publication platform (well it's what it was designed for)...

[edwcross]

Yes but for local political points, they left Twitter last year, because "it was trendy". Besides, lots of old people living here, so they can't leave Facebook, otherwise the old people won't get their news!

As if they cared, most news are only useful for working people and families anyway... but oh well, they vote, they have time to complain loudly, and they have all the houses around here (because of course, why would they move to a better-suited flat place, and leave their now-too-large-for-a-couple houses so that families could move instead?), so the mayor has to be on Facebook, and not on Bluesky or Mastodon or somewhere else.

[austin-cheney]

You are falsely conflating so many things. I highly doubt your local law prevents certain people from ever accessing porn or gambling, because its absurd to enforce. More likely is that they forbid use of employer information system to access vices, which is fine.

Secondly, your local municipality isn't forcing you to access Facebook just because they put some content there.

Third, if you feel that strongly about this then go to your city counsel and demand they put their content somewhere else.

[tempodox]

Sure, let your kids buy alcohol, cocaine and heroin in every shop there is. Then see how much it helps that you ban those at home.

[CJefferson]

Because most people can't set up a DNS blocker. There are lots of things we, as a society, decide we want to ban. I think social media is closer to illegal drugs.

We don't need to let multi-billion dollar companies maximise profits while ruining people's lives. We can just decide to ban them, as a society.